Wikipedia:Peer review/Doping at the 2007 Tour de France/archive1

Doping at the 2007 Tour de France

Listed because the above was a rapidly changing event that was in the media spotlight. Now with the sport moving on, the furore has calmed down, the article is edit-stable and has multiple references. Looking for suggestions as to how to get it up to GA for now. Many thanks Dick G 07:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 02:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeLarge

Hey, I remember this. At an AfD. Hehe, that was amusing. Anyhoo, back to the review...

My first thought was that, as per WP:LEAD#Length, the opening is too short and doesn't summarize the article. I don't necessarily agree with that guideline in every instance, but in this case it highlights the article's biggest flaw (point two, below):

Expand the lead; a straight cut/paste of the second paragraph in the Overview?

Done Slightly re-worked as wanted to farm off some of the content elsewhere Dick G

After doing that, if you re-read the article you basically have a very short Overview, a "rogues' gallery" of bad boys, and a very short Other developments epilogue. Insufficient actual content. Give us more! So...
Expand the Overview, by merging the Other developments into it?

Not done Only because I think it is important that the article emphasises the events during the Tour. It seems there is much less gravitas on the post-Tour developments - most of the talking/action occurred when Rasmussen exited . Thoughts? Dick G

Start the Overview with a summary of the Operación Puerto doping case. Even though it has its own article, it's mentioned on this page four times with no description at all, and therefore forces an unfamiliar reader to navigate elsewhere.

Done lifted the lead from OP article which seemed to work Dick G

Looking at the citations, there's a lack of references from continental Europe. I don't know how multilingual you are, but I bet there's a bazillion enraged op-ed pieces in Le Monde and La Gazzetta dello Sport from fuming cycling journos who've seen their sport desecrated. NPOV is a good thing, but the last two sentences are (in my eyes) insufficient indication of how gigantic a debacle this was in Europe. This can be a Reactions and criticisms section, or some similar name?

Done where most of the effort has gone. Am not multi-lingual (shame) so have had to crib second-hand references from British media but it seems to work Dick G

Once you've expanded the Overview and merged in Other developments, all that's left is the Positive/Affected riders. Personally, I'd try and merge them into the general Overview, but if you'd prefer the current sections (what I referred to as the "rogues' gallery") then that's not a problem, since they're well-written prose. I definitely think that if you keep them they should come at the end, after all the other sections.

Done as regards the latter suggestion. To merge them into overview seems to blur the chronology and would burden the Overview section which is better off as an indicative summary of how the events unfolded. Adding detail of Vinokourov's denials, Astana's voluntary suspension or Contador's protestations seems to clutter that ideal. Dick G

And as someone who always checks his layouts in multiple resolutions, well done on an article which looks good at all screen widths between 500 and 2000 pixels. That's not easy with photos down both sides.

Done wish I could take the credit but not my work unfortunately. With expanded sections the article probably needs more images. Any ideas/assistance?Dick G

Other, minor issues:

I see one day/month not wikilinked (July 31, in the Vinkourov section).

Done think I've picked them all up now Dick G

I'm not 100% on what style guides recommend, but personally I'd spell out "fifth", "twelfth", "seventeenth", where they occur; every number from 1 to 20, plus 30, 40, 50, up to 100 in words, others written in numbers (but check the Chicago Manual of Style or similar for confirmation that this would be correct).

Done in part. I am not keen on spelling out placings as I think it is ugly and unnecessary though happy to defer to any MOS sticklers.Dick G

Hope all this helps, regards, --DeLarge 23:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: reading over my comments this morning, I'm not 100% that I did a decent job of communicated my suggestions. I therefore created a sandbox at User:DeLarge/2007 Doping to illustrate what I meant; hopefully that'll help. Done in part. Comments above refer to any departures from the suggested order Dick G

Also, after re-reading the article, one small issue I have is that because riders aren't excluded immediately (i.e. they're tested in stage 11, but not excluded until five stages later), it's not immediately obvious that the article's in chronological order. For example, I'd suggest changing "Italian cyclist Cristian Moreni tested positive for testosterone after stage 11, in which he finished 102nd. After finishing stage 16, he was immediately pulled out of the Tour by his team, Cofidis." to "Immediately after he finished stage 16, Italian cyclist Cristian Moreni was pulled out of the Tour by his team, Cofidis. He had tested positive for testosterone in a sample taken after stage 11, where he finished 102nd." That might better emphasize the "chronologic" (sic) of the page. Done Think I've addressed this now as article is more chronological. Happy to be shown any errors or fuzzy chronologic Dick G

Further regards, --DeLarge 10:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very grateful for your time. Regards Dick G 16:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner -- I ended up taking about a week's holiday shortly after you posted, and I'm only just getting back up to speed.

Just to let you know that everything seems fine now, at least as far as my peer review is concerned. Obviously any GA- or FA-candidacy is likely to attract a more thorough examination, so I offer no disclaimers, ha-ha. I think what you now have is the basis for a good article -- improvements to it will come from tweaking, rather than major additions of content. The only comment I might make is with regard to the layout of the photos (ironically, my suggestions may have messed these up slightly). All the pics are in one small section of the article, and I thought spreading them out might help? Perhaps moving the Vinkourov image up a bit to where he's first mentioned (During the Tour)?

As for more images, the only suggestion might be to do a search on Flickr. There's an advanced search function that allows you to look for only CC-licensed images. While they're not all compatible with WP (we can only accept those with no commercial restrictions, or something like that), you might get lucky and find a suitable shot. Alternatively you can contact the photographers directly and ask nicely. I was able to get a photo that way once. (see Image:Mitsubishi i 2.jpg and the original image). --DeLarge 00:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 02:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]